PDA

View Full Version : Dec. USMS BOD meeting: I am very impressed with this item!



SCAQ Member
January 1st, 2011, 03:33 PM
Here is the proposal:


"... MSA - The Local Masters Swim Committee (LMSC) and National Board of Review (NBR) processes shall be exhausted before a grievant or appellant has standing to initiate any action beyond the Rules of United States Masters Swimming (USMS). In the absence of the exhaustion of the administrative procedures afforded to all members of USMS, USMS shall seek dismissal of any action initiated outside the rules of USMS as premature. ..."

I am very impressed with this proposal for I feel it removes the potential for "office politics" and grants the USMS the ultimate authority as to who gets banned, suspended or "spanked" rather than a handful of people at the local level.

I like the idea of an unbiased "supreme court" if you will to ensure rules and regulations are correctly followed.

Rob Copeland
March 22nd, 2011, 06:08 PM
Yes, you are correct; there are no provisions in Part 4 that require “speedy resolutions.” As one of the people involved in developing the most recent iteration of Part 4 that was approved by our House of Delegates, it was decided it was better to do it right instead of doing it fast. If there are members out there who disagree with this philosophy then I encourage them to work through their LMSC to propose amendments to our rules.

I have had the pleasure of working with our National Board of Review chair and members of hearing panels and in my opinion our chair and panel members are extremely competent and diligent in their commitment to USMS and the execution of the work they have volunteered to undertake. They understand that the thoughtful and timely investigation and deliberation of grievances are important in protecting the interests of US Masters Swimming and our members. Personally, I applaud their work.

And I’d like to point out a couple of things about the example sited:

First, sending information to the Executive Committee and the National Board of Review is NOT the same as filing a grievance. As I understand it there was no grievance filed immediately pursuant to minutes of the EC meeting; information was sent, but not a grievance.

Second, there was a problem with jurisdiction. The rules in place at the time dictated that a grievance should have been filed and handled within the LMSC and that any appeal of the LMSC decision could be filed with the NBR. Subsequently we have changed our rules and now give the NBR original jurisdiction. Additionally, the rules in place at the time allowed for a grievant or respondent to request that the Executive Committee assign immediate jurisdiction of a filed grievance to the NBR.

Third, I believe that once a grievance was filed with the National Board of Review, that the matter was handled swiftly. Which leads me to believe the failure is in educating members who wish to file grievances and not necessarily within rules and policies in place.

Fourth, and while I can’t prove it, I personally believe if you had filed a grievance in accordance with the 2005 rules instead of “sent information to the USMS Executive Committee” that the matter would have been resolved much more quickly.

Rob Copeland
March 22nd, 2011, 11:24 PM
So what was done wrong?.I obviously did a poor job of explaining how the USMS grievance process was intended to be followed. My apologies!

And without boring the reading forumites by going into great details about how we did business years ago, if you would like me to explain the intent of the rules as I wrote them, please give me a call.

SCAQ Member
March 23rd, 2011, 02:41 PM
I am still impressed for the same reasons I mentioned originally. In fact, I am thinking that the USMS should become a centralized organization rather than the "feudalistic" model that the USMS uses today.

I see tremendous economic opportunities if we did so: There would be salaries for a professional staff, "Groupon" like discounts for products and services, and best of all the removal of politics from the local level so as to avoid silly ad hoc "trials" which ultimately threaten USMS resources.

I see no point in using a feudalistic system in a digital age. Nothing I said above is inaccurate nor offensive so don't take it as so.

Tony Austin!

Rob Copeland
March 23rd, 2011, 03:24 PM
...without resorting to highly paid lawyers to interpret...
...your wish to do it slowly and perfectly ...For the record, I am neither highly paid nor a lawyer, and I am a far cry from perfect; only a humble volunteer in service to US Masters Swimming, doing the best I can.:bow:

SCAQ Member
March 23rd, 2011, 04:47 PM
For the record, I am neither highly paid nor a lawyer, and I am a far cry from perfect; only a humble volunteer in service to US Masters Swimming, doing the best I can.:bow:

...And I think you should be paid.

Tony

Rob Copeland
March 25th, 2011, 02:28 PM
...And I think you should be paid.

Tony

Thanks, I keep hearing I’ll reap my rewards in the next life…
Unlike Uncle Kenny http://www.rickross.com/reference/kcm/kcm7.html